Editorial Introduction

Robert Louis Stevenson, lifelong connoisseur of "penny dreadfuls," was haunted by one in particular: A Mystery in Scarlet (1866), by “Malcolm J. Errym.” In Stevenson's childhood, his nurse Alison Cunningham read this serial to him. “Memory may play me false,” Stevenson recalls in “Popular Authors,” published in Scribner’s Magazine in 1886, “but I believe there was a kind of merit about ERRYM,” whose Mystery in Scarlet “runs in my mind to this day” (126). Its persistence in his memory troubled him. He clearly recalled its villains, the tyrannical King George II and his sycophantic valet Norris. However, he had forgotten the resolution. Consequently, he promises Scribner's readers, “if any hunter of autographs […] can lay his hand on a copy even imperfect, and will send it to me care of Mr. Scribner, my gratitude will drop even into poetry” (ibid). Perhaps someone responded to this plea, for, by April 1889, Stevenson possessed a copy. Rereading it confirmed his debt to Errym. “I liked it hugely,” he wrote to his former neighbor Adelaide Boodle, “far better than I ever expected; and see that Mr. Errym [...] had a genuine influence on me, and wish I had his talent, above all in sketching girls” (Mehew 396).

Despite this impact on Stevenson, A Mystery in Scarlet has never been reprinted, nor has it received any critical attention. This neglect might be due to scholars' assumption that it is irretrievably lost. The Orlando Project  biography of  Rymer claims “the text does not survive.” Only, it does, in at least two complete copies and one partial copy. One complete copy is at the British Library. The others, respectively at Indiana University, Bloomington’s Wells Library and the same institution’s Lilly Library, provide this COVE edition with text and illustrations.

In compiling the present edition, I aim to bring this neglected serial to Victorianists, particularly those studying the  penny press, working-class literature, or Stevenson. Furthermore, by providing facsimiles of the leading illustrations, complete with the periodical's masthead, largely without image correction, I hope to allow readers to experience A  Mystery in Scarlet as a penny paper serial, just as Stevenson did as a delighted child and as a critically discerning author.

Alias ‘Errym’

Stevenson never knew the true identity of the author of A Mystery in Scarlet. Familiar with penny dreadfuls attributed to “Captain Merry, USN,” he correctly deduced that “Errym” is an anagram of “Merry,” and speculated that “Merry” was the author’s real name. In fact, “Merry” and “Errym” are both anagrammatic noms de plume of James Malcolm Rymer, a prolific and influential London author and editor of penny periodical content who, by the time he wrote A Mystery in Scarlet, had been consistently producing such material for over twenty years. The most successful member of a London literary-artistic family of Scottish origin that spanned the Romantic and Victorian eras, Rymer began in the 1840s to work for the penny publishing magnate Edward Lloyd, sometime an adherent of Chartism, who, as Rohan McWilliam argues, later turned away from that movement to construct a previously unimaginable working-class "liberal consensus" (209). For this visionary publisher, Rymer wrote many "penny bloods": illustrated fiction serials that targeted working-class family readers, often with dramatic, lurid plots, historical settings, and themes of rebellious or revolutionary criminality. Lloyd published many of his bloods first in penny magazines, at least one of which Rymer edited. Rymer’s romance Ada, the Betrayed (1843), serialized in Lloyd’s Penny Weekly Miscellany, was a “runaway bestseller,” causing Lloyd to advertise Rymer serials as the work of “the Author of Ada” for years thereafter (James, Fiction xx). The same title appealed to Dante Gabriel Rossetti (Tillotson 31). Other well-received, relatively enduring bloods that Rymer wrote for Lloyd include Varney the Vampyre, or, the Feast of Blood (1845-7), an important precursor to Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and the original tale of Sweeney Todd, The String of Pearls, a Romance (1846-7). Rymer later expanded it under the title The String of Pearls, or the Barber of Fleet Street, A Domestic Romance (1850).

While writing for Lloyd and other penny publishers, Rymer kept a low profile. In his early publication The Queen’s Magazine, Rymer proudly used his full name in his bylines as editor and contributor and included an engraved portrait of himself surrounded by books and prints and taking dictation from an anthropomorphic “Spirit of the Age” (76). But, by 1843, he was publishing anonymously, and, in the 1850s and onwards, pseudonymously, under names including “Errym.” At least once, he used the pseudonym "Errym" socially, when dining with other penny writers at a company banquet (Collins x).

Rymer's penny fiction helped to acclimate Victorian working-class families to recreational reading. In a memoir of 1880, another writer of bloods and dreadfuls, Thomas Frost, recalled the penny serial as an important resource that filled a gap in working-class intellectual life. “No longer ago than the commencement of the second quarter of the present [nineteenth] century readers were very few proportionately to the population,” Frost claims, so “no editor of a periodical dreamed of addressing either them or the working class” (67). Before the development of the penny serial—initially, dry, informational works published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (SDUK)—Frost’s childhood household read only the Bible, “school books,” Cobbett’s Register, and political pamphlets (6-7). In early adulthood, Frost encountered Rymer’s anonymous bloods Varney the Vampyre and Ada the Betrayed and became a full member of the British reading nation. 

It is unclear why Rymer pursued anonymity so scrupulously, but the reputation of popular fiction might have had something to do with it. Middle-class commentators reviled penny bloods, insisting they promoted working-class idleness and violence, particularly in the aftermath of the valet Benjamin Francois Courvoisier's attribution of his murder of his employer Lord Russell to William Harrison Ainsworth’s highwayman romance Jack Sheppard, serialized in Bentley’s Miscellany in 1839-40. Two Punch cartoons reveal this myth about penny bloods. In "'Parties' for the Gallows" (1845), a Cockney teenager tells a newsagent "I vonts an illustrated newspaper with a norrid ['an horrid'] murder and a likeness [portrait] in it." In "Useful Sunday Literature for the Masses, or, Murder Made Familiar" (1849), the working-class "Father of a Family" reads to his wife and children "[t]he wretched Murderer is supposed to have cut the throats of his three eldest Children, and then to have killed the Baby by beating it repeatedly with a Poker," while a "likeness" of Courvoisier hangs on the wall and a Bible languishes on the floor, its page block open in the dirt (both reproduced in Jackson). In this context, Rymer may have preferred to avoid public association with controversial literature. 

Rymer's penny bloods articulate radical political critique pitched to a target audience that, like Rymer himself, was metropolitan and working-class. Maisha Wester persuasively argues that The String of Pearls “highlights anxieties about the emergence of industrial capitalism,” specifically as experienced by working-class people (159). Ted Geier judges The String of Pearls an “essential expression of […] various nonhuman forms” and their relation to “various London publics” that responds to debate about the future of meat trading at Smithfield Market (120). According to this reading, Todd’s secret cannibal butcher shop prefigures the modern metropolis as a space of invisible butchery that processes people as commodities.  For Troy Boone, Rymer’s Varney, the Vampire “enables working-class readers to enter debates about violence and class typically identified with Chartist radicalism” (Boone 52). Rymer tells his readers they are “[f]ree to envision other narratives for themselves” than the tradition post-1789 narrative of class revolution as mob violence” (59). According to Ellen Rosenman, penny fiction is consistently shaped by political radicalisms. One of Rymer's Lloyd-published bloods, Mazeppa, or, the Wild Horse of the Ukraine (1850), even features a working-class hero whose Oriental compatriots demand for their Prime Minister, on account of his wisdom and bravery. In response, he explains the disenfranchisement of his class. "Oh, pho!" he says, "me a prime-minister anywhere out of England [...] would never do, and in England, I have not the capital" (492). His interlocutors are confused:

"The what?"
"The capital."
"Do you mean money?"
"No, not altogether money, although that is essential; but in England, you must know, no man can be anything or hope to be anything in the population without capital. That is to say, he must have have birth and its consequent influence, and its consequent opportunities."
"Birth?" said Mazeppa; "I thought that in England was of small amount, and that ability was a grand thing."
"Then, my dear friend, you know nothing at all about it. In England men are almost all born to be what they will be. One man is born a member of Parliament; another a parson; another a lawyer, and so on; and it is about as impossible for any one not born in the classes from which members of parliament, parsons, and lawyers are made, to become either, as it would be for me to walk away with the castle of Ureka in my waistcoat pocket."
"You indeed surprise me. I thought that England was the most liberal country upon the face of the earth."
"Tush! It's all humbug." (Rymer, Mazeppa 492-3)

Considered together, these various political interventions suggest that the genre of the penny blood, especially as advanced by Rymer, was progressive in both intention and impact.

It is therefore not surprising that its progress was quickly curtailed. In 1857, the Obscene Publications Act, also known as Lord Campbell’s Act, authorized the search of any premises suspected of harboring “obscene” literature as well as the seizure and destruction of such literature, from any such premises or the post. This legislation had a chilling effect on publishers of penny bloods. Lloyd abandoned the literature industry, focusing on newspapers and even buying up and destroying his own titles. Rymer survived to write less gory but equally politically engaged ‘penny dreadfuls’ for new publishers, such as John Dicks, for whom he proved, as with Lloyd, a “major” house author (James, ODNB 494). His 1860s dreadfuls include the highwayman serial Edith the Captive (which Stevenson read) and its sequel Edith Heron.

In 1866, Rymer began editing a new penny periodical, The London Miscellany, which he designed to appeal to readers of his dreadfuls, his earlier bloods, and the new genre of the sensation novel while avoiding suspicion of immorality. He reveals these goals in a fictional dialogue, “The Editor and Paterfamilias,” published on in the London Miscellany’s February 10, 1866 first number.1 “You will cater largely in the ‘fiction’ way,” Paterfamilias establishes. “Now, what will be the nature of your Romances? Will they be all milk or of a more ensanguined colour?”

Ed. Something between—say couleur de rose [sic].
Pater. Yes: but will they be sensational?
Ed. You mention that word in a tone of alarm. Now, I am happy to say that those romances which rake up the gutter of human depravity are a commercial mistake. Their hideous portraits repel most readers […] but, if you ask me whether our tales will bristle with incident, curl round the reader, and drag him along with them, I answer that we will use any known recipe for effecting that object. You must not be deluded by a cuckoo cry. The most “correct” magazines endeavor to be sensational. (Rymer, “The Editor and Paterfamilias” 12)

With this retort, Rymer’s editorial persona reassures Paterfamilias and brazenly questions the morality of upscale periodicals. In the pages of The London Miscellany, the Editor (Rymer) keeps up this rhetorical pose, at one point warning the reader that Lord Byron—a writer frequently quoted and cited in Rymer’s earlier bloods, and the source of his blood Mazeppa, “was a tippler [drunk]” whose ‘vile Don Juan’ is “unfit for any woman to read” (130).

In practice, however, The London Miscellany’s "rose" proved a decidedly deep red. The first volume of the magazine offers two short tales by “Lewis Monk” (30, 62), a pseudonym that invokes Matthew G. Lewis, author of The Monk (1796), which, as Diane Long Hoeveler has shown, penny bloods emulated (246). The William Heard Hillyard serial The Fair Savage, A Story of an Indian War-Trail, which runs in the first eleven numbers of The London Miscellany, features a villain with a “Tarquin-like project” (10): an attempted rapist. In no. 15, Rymer recycles a bloody tale that informs his masterpiece The String of Pearls, “The Murders in the Rue de la Harpe” (anon., The Tell-Tale, 1824; reprinted in Lloyd’s Miscellany, 1842), retitling it “The Barber Fiend” (239). Another allusion to the penny bloods of the 1840s permeates A Mystery in Scarlet: its protagonist, Captain Weed Markham, shares a name with Richard Markham, the picaresque hero of Reynolds’s bestselling and widely-emulated penny blood The Mysteries of London (1844-5), itself a “strong influence” on Rymer’s The String of Pearls (Collins xxii). These allusions demonstrate that in The London Miscellany, the penny blood was not dead, just buried in print of which Paterfamilias would approve.

Neither was Rymer’s political fire extinguished. The London Miscellany continues the radicalism of his earlier works, consistently pointing out upper-class excess and irresponsibility and the need for justice for working men and the poor. In the first number, a Rymer-authored serial, Emmeline, or, the Serpent in the Wreath, introduces an early “owner” of a “lordly mansion”:

Clinging to the gilt balustrades of the staircase, his hair wildly disordered, a brocade dressing-gown, torn and disarranged, as it hung about him, and the wild fire of partial intoxication in his eyes [...] the Sybarite [...] at his nod, could have the remotest corners of the globe ransacked to his appetites and his luxuries. (6)

Reminiscent of a Continental aristocratic villain out of the novels of Anne Radcliffe---or Donatien-Alphonse-François de Sade---this character is in fact British. His “mansion” is located in London's Grosvenor Square. Continuing this theme, an anecdote about Richard Brinsley Sheridan sees the playwright rebuke “a young wealthy heir" for “prid[ing] himself on the accident of his birth” (London Miscellany 8). Reinforcing this theme, the same number of the London Miscellany includes four elaborate pull-out color prints that preview another Rymer serial, Rich and Poor (nos. 3 and 4), in which stock rich characters economically, sexually, and judicially exploit poor ones, with fatal consequences. The prints are the work of artist Robert Prowse (Adcock), controversial illustrator of Charley Wag, The New Jack Sheppard (1860-1), which builds up to a Tower of London heist (Springhall 62). In no. 5, an anonymous contributor declared that “[h]e who is not angry when injustice is perpetrated against the poor and helpless need not mock Heaven with his prayers; hell is ever waiting for him, and the devil will never be further away than his elbow” (69). By making the editorial decision to print this aphorism, Rymer renders acceptance of the socio-economic status quo a danger to the well-off Briton’s soul.

A Mystery in Scarlet

A longing for reform also breathes life into A Mystery in Scarlet, the leading serial of the first eighteen numbers of the 1866 first volume of The London Miscellany. This tale explores anxieties about the perceived relations between gender, householder status, age, and capacity for responsible political participation. For most of Rymer’s lifetime, activists had pursued the expansion of the franchise beyond the male contingent of the socio-economic elite. As Carolyn Vellenga Berman observes, the “Great” Reform Act (1832) admitted to the franchise men who paid homeowner's rates of £10 per annum. This reform increased the percentage of British men eligible to vote increased by 5%, but the change hardly benefited on the working class. As an 1840 editorial noted, "less than one in thirty of the entire population” (emphasis original). Regions with low property values were hit particularly hard by the property test's quantitative benchmark. For instance, in Leeds, low wages and commeasurately low-cost housing largely priced workers out of the electorate (Briggs 239). The unfinished business of expanding the electorate to genuinely represent the people remained subject to intense debate for the next several decades and was a major pillar of Chartism. Parliament rejected the further expansion of the electorate proposed in three successive successive Chartist petitions (1839, 1842, and 1848).

In 1865, a new reform campaign heated up, focusing on the degree to which the electorate should be expanded. Katherine Gleadle shows that many reformers defended “enfranchising [only] the respectable artisan—typically envisaged as a family man and a moral, self-improving citizen” (32). According to this logic, “[t]he ability of the head of the household to provide for his dependents and exert authority over them indicated his capacity for responsible citizenship,” in contrast with the “sexually free bachelor” and the residuum, or supposedly idle poor (32-3). Implicitly, household suffrage disenfranchises most young men and makes political responsibility a condition to grow into. For many participants in the debate, this was not reform enough. In February 1866, James Clay, MP for Hull, proposed to enfranchise “those men of ‘full age’ who were able to pass a simple educational test” (quoted ibid). Clay’s “young men’s bill,” as Gladstone called it, failed. Especially in the wake of its failure, household suffrage seemed to many reformers “a realistic compromise compared with [universal] manhood suffrage” (Gleadle 33-4).

It is therefore significant that “Paterfamilias” is an apt description of three major figures in A Mystery in Scarlet. The title character, protagonist, and villain are all fathers or father-figures, and the novel focuses thematically on the extent to which each rises to or fails at that role. The novel begins in the mid-eighteenth century, with King George II inspecting his image, not in a mirror, but in an uncannily mirror-like portrait, scrutinizing “a brow so wrinkled and corrugated that it more resembled some strange fabric which had been exposed to the action of fire than any thing human” (1). Like Dorian Gray’s portrait half a century later, this Gothic eikon basilike horrifyingly reveals the King’s moral flaws in physiognomic form. Tyrannical, paranoid, avaricious, sexually unfaithful, and consumed with hatred for his suffering queen, Caroline of Ansbach, and ambitious son, Frederick Prince of Wales, George II reassures himself, out loud, that patriotism involves both “service to his king—and—and his country—of course his country” (2). As a father to his own family and the nation, this monarch is a complete failure. While one 1860s opponent of expanded suffrage, Robert Lowe, Viscount Sherbrooke, contended that working-class men gravitated toward "venality, ignorance" and "unreflecting violen[ce]" (qtd. in Briggs 460), A Mystery in Scarlet suggests these qualities have also distinguished the present monarch's ancestors.

As the plot unfolds, Rymer depicts two disenfranchised men evolving into good father-figures, subjects, and leaders. This process begins when King George orders a loyal Kew Palace guard, Captain Weed Markham, to lead a firing squad in the execution of an unnamed stranger in a scarlet coat, who identifies himself only as “a Mystery in Scarlet” (3). Markham obeys, as always: an orphan, he has “neither kith nor kin,” is “alone in this wide world” and consequently grateful for the livelihood and purpose his commission provides. When the body of the Mystery in Scarlet vanishes and Markham, at the King’s command, endeavors to locate it, he finds that the Mystery is not dead—and is the secret elder half-brother of George II. This origin makes the Mystery Britain’s rightful king.

As the serial continues, Rymer continues his advancement of the working-class paterfamilias as a potential citizen. Markham, suddenly finding himself a servant of two royal masters, is uncertain whom to protect and how to act. He is, however, able to discern, that his efficacy as a subject is limited by his degree of power. “What should he do?” he wonders:

Or, rather, what could he do?
What was his duty?
And that again resolved itself into, what was his power? (66)

Without “power,” Rymer insists, the British subject is unable to fulfill his patriotic “duty.” Meanwhile, the Mystery charges Markham to protect his daughter Bertha in an explicitly patriarchal way. “[B]e to her that which I would have been,” the Mystery begs (3). Markham tries, but, of course, he falls in love with her. In becoming her guardian, then her husband, the unquestioning career soldier matures into a critically reflexive citizen. In the end, Markham serves his newfound family and his country by rescuing the Mystery while deterring him from violent revolution, a threat underscored by repeated, often ghoulish references to the Civil War (1642-41) and the Regicide (1659). With this resolution, Rymer questions the notion that the ruling elite unquestionably produces good paterfamiliae. Furthermore, as the Mystery in Scarlet is ultimately revealed as a credible pretender to the British throne, his decree that Markham should protect his daughter and his permission for Markham to marry her makes Markham a citizen by a kind of royal will. This plot point implies that British national destiny requires the enfranchisement of working-class paterfamiliae, including nascent ones like Markham. 

Textual History and Illustrations

Copies of The London Miscellany, volume one (1866), containing the eighteen instalments of A Mystery in Scarlet, are scarce but accessible. A bound copy of this volume survives in the collection of the Wells Library at Indiana University, Bloomington. The same university’s Lilly Library possesses additional, unbound copies of the first and eighteenth numbers, containing the first and final instalments. The entire first volume and some later numbers of the "new series" (also edited by Rymer) are also in the British Library’s Barry Ono Collection. None of this evidence eliminates the possibility of a lost penny parts edition’s publication, in Stevenson’s possession or otherwise, but until such an edition is located, we must not assume it was ever published. As far as we can now know, the London Miscellany is the serial’s only edition.

Like all leading serials in penny magazines, A Mystery in Scarlet is illustrated. It carries seventeen initial illustrations: one per instalment with the unexplained exception of the ninth instalment. The illustrations are probably by the iconic Dickens illustrator "Phiz" (pseudonym of Hablot Knight Browne). The London Miscellany credits Phiz as the illustrator of some of the magazine's content. At the end of the first number, a “Notice to Subscribers” announces that “a high class of Illustrations” is assured because “we have made permanent arrangements with PHIZ, and other eminent Artists engaged on Once a Week, Good Words, The Leisure Hour, and other approved serials” (12). In later numbers, specific serials’ illustrations are credited to Phiz; among them, the generic ‘urban mysteries’ sketch collection London Revelations, as a note in no. 4 declares (44), and in 1907, Victorian journalist Thomas Power O’Connor declared in his periodical T.P.’s Weekly that Phiz was the illustrator. "Malcolm J. Errym ... a transposition of his real surname, Rymer... flourished about half a century ago," O'Connor recalls. "I remember a story of his called "A Mystery in Scarlet," treating of King George II, and the Young Pretender. This was illustrated by "Phiz" (Hablot K. Browne), and appeared in the London Miscellany," about 1867" (O’Connor 732). Admittedly, O’Connor was wrong about the Young Pretender (Charles Edward Stuart), but otherwise correctly identifies Rymer, claiming he "also wrote for Reynolds's Miscellany" (ibid), and, having worked for the London Telegraph in the 1870s, probably knew people who knew Rymer personally. In the twenty-first century, the penny fiction scholar John Adcock has declared in his blog Yesterday's Papers that Phiz is the illustrator of A Mystery in Scarlet.

This attribution also makes sense aesthetically, as the illustrations look very much like Phiz's work. They are rendered in the "comedic and theatrical style" for which he was renowned, and which was largely displaced in the 1860s by a new, more serious mode (Allingham "A Tale"). Several features echo Phiz's earlier works, including his Dickens illustrations. These include oblong compositions, meticulously detailed eighteenth-century court dress, lines that appear thin for a wood relief print, exaggerated facial expressions, portraits hung in rows above the characters, characters drawn from the back as they wheel dynamically forwards, and crowd scenes in which the crowd appears to have lined up in one or two horizontal rows at the front of the composition. On account of the strong stylistic similarities, Phiz's modern biographer Valerie Browne Lester has "no doubt whatsoever" that the artwork is "very obviously by Phiz" (Lester). 

The illustrations are wood engravings. In 1850-1880, at least a quarter of all illustrations printed in British books were durable, inexpensively-produced end-grain wood engravings (Allingham, "Technologies.") In fact, wood relief (engravings and woodcuts). Wood engravings were particularly prominent in the penny press, and had been since its inception in the 1830s. Rymer seems to have insisted that illustrators of The London Miscellany plan for their drawings to be transferred to wood. In the fourth number, he castigates a correspondent for submitting a drawing for consideration in another medium. “The drawing should have been on wood,” Rymer declares. “If you will send us a block, we shall be able to judge” if it is suitable (64).

Nevertheless, Browne found the medium frustrating.  As Rodney K. Engen has documented in his Dictionary of Victorian Wood Engravers, "Browne was never comfortable drawing on wood, his style being too fine-lined and sketchy to be adequately engraved or printed" (34). In 1867, Browne wrote to his son that he was engaged to supply a "Sporting Paper" with drawings on wood. "I hate the process," he declared:

It takes quite four times as long on wood--and I cannot draw and express myself with a nasty little finiking brish, and the result when printed seems to alternate between something all as black as my hat--or as hazy and faint as a worn-out plate. (qtd. in Kitton 19)

Still, work was work, so during the 1860s, Browne executed at least 227 illustrations that were ultimately printed from wood, including The Young Ragamuffin, which was engraved in 1866 by the firm of George and Edward Dalziel, the "visionary engravers" who in the previous year had brought John Tenniel's Alice in Wonderland illustrations to life (Engen 34-5). Rymer must have been delighted to obtain Browne's collaboration on The London Miscellany.

In any case, Rymer should have dpne, because Browne's engravings are dramatically effective, if not particularly original. His illustrations of A Tale of Two Cities (1859) make "characters initially unknown [...] more and more recognizable as a result of an interaction of text and plate, and of the plates with each other" (Allingham, "A Tale.") The illustrations of A Mystery in Scarlet have the same effect, stereotyping (in the printing-related sense of that word) the stock characters in the brain, facilitating their instant recall when, after vanishing into London's shadows for a few chapters, they reappear.

Browne's contribution to A Mystery in Scarlet also helpfully reinforces Rymer’s political agenda. Upper-class villains such as Norris appear comedic figures. In the first illustration, Norris crouches like a lapdog at the heels of the gallant Captain Markham. Court scenes underscore the sumptuous extravagance and frivolous antiquated fashion of early Hanoverian St. James, echoing the class politics of the text. Similarly advancing this rhetoric, Prowse's Rich and Poor prints depict the rich in the same way and the poor with dignity, and grouped into nuclear families, just as does the text of A Mystery in Scarlet.

Editorial Methodology

This edition aims to provide scholars of Victorian literature with an accurate, machine-readable text of A Mystery in Scarlet and a relatively uninterrupted human-reading experience that allows, as far as possible, for readers to imagine that they follow the story as Stevenson initially did--as a serial, with each part introduced by the London Miscellany's masthead and an initial engraving. I have transcribed A Mystery in Scarlet from the Wells Library copy of the London Miscellany. The result is partly documentary, as my edition faithfully reproduces the original 1866 text, organized, like the original, into eighteen instalments, each of which contains an engraving, a caption, and three chapters. Installments will appear periodically throughout the year 2020, albeit at less frequent intervals than did the serial in 1866.

Most of the engravings (Nos. 2-17) derive from the Wells Library copy of the London Miscellany, and are rendered in black and white for reasons of clarity and of faithfulness to their likely appearance when they emerged from the press in 1866. The illustrations of the first and final instalments are reproduced from the Lilly Library’s slightly better, near-magically clean unbound copies of those numbers, primarily so that readers of COVE without access to the archives and private collections that hold the rare surviving examples of unbound “penny parts” can see what they looked like, and envision taking them down from a Victorian newsagent’s shelf and holding them in their hands. The Lilly copy of no. 1 is also the source of the images of the Prowse artworks. The text is paginated as in the London Miscellany, which accounts for the gaps in the pagination.

To facilitate deep and mindful reading, the most disruptive of the London Miscellany’s typographical errors are amended, and the corrected text marked with square brackets []. Annotations of these bracketed phrases reveal the original, erroneous text.  However, other idiosyncrasies of the source are preserved, including the original formatting of the line breaks. Relatively short instalments of 6,000-7,500 words probably occupy a great deal of space on your screen due to Rymer’s frequent use of one-sentence paragraphs, a convention that pervades his bloods and dreadfuls. While the plentiful line breaks build tension, they also consume column inches quickly, allowing Rymer to fill pages quickly and to write multiple serials at once. I suspect this convention contributes to the scarcity of penny dreadful reprints and modern editions, as such a waste of paper and ink does not accord well with the economics of traditional academic print publishing. As for the critical apparatus, brief annotations supply informational notes including on the text’s relation to other works by Rymer, fellow penny authors such as Reynolds, and Stevenson. Finally, the COVE Collective’s open-access policy ensures that a new generation of readers may now experience A Mystery in Scarlet without needing, as Stevenson did, to offer up a valuable autograph that “drop[s] even into poetry.”

So, go on.

Look over Stevenson’s shoulder as, holed up in his cabin crossing the Pacific or temporarily at rest in Waikiki, he carefully opens a volume of folio pages, the paper brittle after only twenty years, and peers first at the illustrated plate, then the caption, then the text.

A mystery awaits.

I hope you will enjoy it as thoroughly as he did.

1 A previous magazine, also titled The London Miscellany: of Literature, Science, and Art, was in print in 1857-8 (at minimum). A bound copy of no. 1-32 survives in the collection of the British Library. The 1866 London Miscellany begins with vol. 1, no. 1, and makes no mention of this earlier venture. 

Works Cited

Note: only open-access born-digital electronic sources are hyperlinked.
Hyperlinked sites will open in new windows.

Adcock, John. “The London Miscellany.” Yesterday's Papers. June 21, 2012. [retrieved June 28, 2018].

Allingham, Phillip V. "A Tale of Two Cities (1859): The Last Dickens Novel "Phiz" Illustrated." Victorian Web [retrieved 5 August 2018].

---. "The Technologies of Nineteenth-Century Illustration: Woodblock Engraving, Steel Engraving, and Other Processes." Victorian Web [retrieved 5 August 2018].

Berman, Carolyn Vellenga. "On the Reform Act of 1832." BRANCH: Britain, Representation, and Nineteenth-Century History. Ed. Dino Franco Felluga. Extension of Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net. Web. [accessed 22 June 2018].

Boone, Troy. Youth of Darkest England: Working-Class Children at the Heart of Victorian Empire. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Briggs, Asa. England in the Age of Improvement, 1783-1867. 1959. London: Folio Society, 1999.

Buckley, Matthew. "Sensations of Celebrity: Jack Sheppard and the Mass Audience." Victorian Studies 44.3 (2002): 423-463.

Flanders, Judith. “Penny Dreadfuls.” The British Library. 2014. [retrieved 22 June 2018].

Brown, Susan, Patricia Clements, and Isobel Grundy. ‘James Malcolm Rymer’. The Orlando Project. Cambridge University. [retrieved 22 June 2018].

Carlisle, Janice. “On the Second Reform Act, 1867.” BRANCH: Britain, Representation, and Nineteenth-Century History. Ed. Dino Franco Felluga. Extension of Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net. Web. [accessed 22 June 2018].

Collins, Dick, ed. The String of Pearls (Sweeney Todd). Ware: Wordsworth, 2010.

Frost, Thomas. Forty Years' Recollections: Literary and Political. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1880.

Engen, Rodney K. Dictionary of Victorian Wood Engravers. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1985.

Geier, Ted. Meat Markets: The Cultural History of Bloody London. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017.

Gleadle, Katherine. “Masculinity, Age, and Life Cycle in the Age of Reform.” Parliamentary History 36.1 (2017): 31-45.

Jackson, Lee. “Penny Dreadfuls and Gallows Literature.” The Dictionary of Victorian London. 2018. [accessed 8 July 2018]

James, Louis. Fiction for the Working Man, 1830-50. 3rd edn. Brighton: Edward Everett Root, 2017.

—. “Rymer, James Malcolm.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 60 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Vol. 48, pp. 494-5.

“James Malcolm Rymer, The Dark Woman” [catalog entry]. Richard Neylon. St. Mary’s, Tasmania, Australia. [accessed 12 March 2018].

Kitton, Frédéric George. "Phiz" (Hablot K. Browne), A Memoir, Including a Selection from his Correspondence and Notes on His Principal Works. London: Satchell, 1882.  

Lester, Valerie Browne, email to Rebecca Nesvet, 4 August 2018.

Lill, Sarah Louise. “Romances and Penny Bloods.” Edward Lloyd. <http://www.edwardlloyd.org/romances.htm> [accessed 7 July 2018]

London Metropolitan Archives; London, England; Reference Number: DL/T/063/015, Ancestry.com [accessed July 2, 2018].

The London Miscellany. London: Charles Jones, 1866.

The London Miscellany 1, no. 1-32 (1857-8).

McWilliam, Rohan. "Sweeney Todd and the Chartist Gothic: Politics and Print Culture in Early Victorian Britain." Edward Lloyd and His World: Popular Fiction, Politics and the Press in Victorian Britain. Ed. Sarah Lill and Rohan McWilliam. New York: Routledge, 2019. Pp. 198-215.

Mehew, Ernest, ed. Selected Letters of Robert Louis Stevenson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Nesvet, Rebecca. ‘Blood Relations: The Spaniard and Sweeney Todd’, Notes and Queries n.s. 64.1 (2017): 112–16.

—, ed. “Science and Art: A Farce in Two Acts, by Malcolm Rymer.” Scholarly Editing: The Journal of the Association for Documentary Editing 38 (2017). [accessed 28 June 2018].

O’Connor, Thomas Power. “Author Found.” T.P.'s Weekly 9 (June 7, 1907): 732.

Rosenman, Ellen. "Beyond the Nation: Penny Fiction, the Crimean War, and Political Belonging." Victorian Literature and Culture 46 (2018): 95–124.

"Rymer, Caroline." London, London Metropolitan Archives. Reference Number: DL/T/063/015. Ancestry.com [accessed July 2, 2018].

Rymer, James Malcolm, ed. The Queen’s Magazine (1842).

—.  Mazeppa, or, the Wild Horse of the Ukraine. London: Edward Lloyd, 1850.

Stevenson, Robert Louis. “Popular Authors.Scribner's Magazine. (4 July 1888): 122-8.

Sutherland, James. A Book of Scattered Leaves: Poetry of Poverty in Broadside Ballads of NIneteenth-Century England, 2 vols. Lewisberg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press, 2002.

—. The Longman Companion to Victorian Fiction, 2nd ed. Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge, 2013.

Springhall, John. Youth, Popular Culture and Moral Panics: Penny Gaffs to Gangsta-Rap, 1830–1996. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1999.

Tillotson, Katherine. Novels of the Eighteen-Forties. Oxford: Clarendon, 1954.

Twelfth Report of her Majesty's Civil Service Commissioners, Vol. 21. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1867.

Thompson, Dorothy. Outsiders: Class, Gender, and Nation. London: Verso, 1993.

Vanden Bossche, Chris R. “On Chartism.” BRANCH: Britain, Representation, and Nineteenth-Century History. Ed. Dino Franco Felluga. Extension of Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net. Web. [accessed 22 June 2018].

Wester, Maisha. “Text as Gothic Murder Machine: The Cannibalism of Sawney Beane and Sweeney Todd.” Technologies of the Gothic in Literature and Culture: Technogothics. Ed. Justin Edwards. New York: Routledge, 2015. Pp. 154-65.